Further Ponderings On Raf Scooters

[upnorth]

My RAF A-4 project is coming along and some thoughts have struck me about what to put into the backstory.

Remember this is a Harrier and Jaguar free alternate history.

I'm calling my Scooter variant a GR.3 (A-4C basis) and saying that it entered service at the very end of the 70s.

The GR.3 development was delayed significantly due to political niggling in the 70s, the intent was to have it replace the Skyhawk GR.1 (ex-FAA aircraft) by the mid 70s rather than in the late 70s as it did.

In an earlier thread, Evan suggested the RAF Scooters could have a dry RB.199 engine and I think its a good idea. However, As the GR.3 came into service in the late 70s, it would have seen work alongside the Buccaneer in the pre Tornado era. My thought would be to have the initial batches of GR.3s coming off the production line with dry Spey engines for commomality with the Buccaneer and then getting the RB.199 as part of a mid life upgrade package when the Tornado started replacing the Buccaneer. Would a dry Spey fit in an A-4C airframe?

The GR.3 was the first Skyhawk variant purpose built for the RAF rather than refitted ex-FAA ones, as such, certain naval attributes gave way to items more in line with RAF intrests:

The arrestor hook and launching attachments were deleted. Early GR.3s got braking chutes, however these were found to be unneccesary and the chute housings were later converted into housings for upgraded ECM gear

The LRMTS in the nose was also a requirement the RAF had that was unknown in FAA Scooters. GR.1 Skyhawks used pod based laser designators but the RAF weren't keen on sacrificing a weapons pylon and demanded that such systems be integral to the GR.3.

While the  FAA and GR.1 Skyhawks maintained the fixed American style refueling probe, the GR.3 was fitted with a partially retractable probe.

The GR.3 was completely replaced by the GR.5 by 1988

Do those bits sound plausible?

Any insights are welcome.

[nev]

I would keep the arrestor hook - plenty of RAF aircraft from the Lightning to the Tornado had the hook, in case of brake failure or somesuch (a German Tornado caught the wire at the Waddington airshow a few years ago after the brakes failed)

Everything else sounds very plausible and I look forward to seeing it in RAF wraparound camo    

[Archibald]

According to the secret project board, a TF-30 Skyhawk was a competitor to the
A-7 Corsair II in the early 60's. So why not not a Spey Skyhawk ?

One of my hobbies for months now is listing Spey variants of American and French aircrafts. Mind you, there was really a bunch of proposal around this engine in the mid - 60s.
 I've found so far  Mirage IV, Mirage III and Vautour, but also american types such as F-100 (among others).

So a  spey Skyhawk doesn't seem unlikely at all!

About the RB-199, it is rather similar to the F-404 (mid-70's, roughly  17 000 Ibs with reheat, and so on)  so if Singapore did it, why not the RAF ?
Even better, the RB-199 being smaller than a RB-168 Spey, engine change won't be a problem...

[upnorth]

I would keep the arrestor hook - plenty of RAF aircraft from the Lightning to the Tornado had the hook, in case of brake failure or somesuch (a German Tornado caught the wire at the Waddington airshow a few years ago after the brakes failed)

O.K. How about this scenario:

GR.3s were initially built without the arrestor hook and had the chute in its place, but a series of accidents, like brake failures, led to the hook being reintegrated into the design from the third production batch onward and often, but not always retrofitted to first and second batch aircraft.

My Speyhawk (catchy name, huh? ) will represent a first or second batch aircraft that has had its chute replaced with ECM but not yet been retrofitted with the arrestor hook.

Incidentally, mine will be in 11 Sqn. markings rather than 16 Sqn. as I had planned. The 16 Sqn. markings I had were just too out of register for me to live with.

To say that the members of 11 Sqn. a unit with pure fighter lineage (to that point anyway) were displeased to be diverted to mud moving and CAS would be one of the great understatements in the unit's history.

[retro_seventies]

So....TA-4's instead of hawks then?

That really WOULD be a nail in the cofffin of the british airccraft industry - Hawker are really taking a pounding with no harrier, and the adoption of the TA-4 (a logical step) would be a bitter pill.

Let's hope that the TSR.2 sold well!

The Speyhawk sounds like a winner - how high tech are you going to go with this?  Is the Gr.5 going to have LLTV or IR?  Glass cockpit? FBW? Rewinging or canards? A retractable TRAM ball? Pave tack or pave spike? - maybe have them in Op Granby working in pairs, one designates, the other drops....

...or they could be the designators for Tonkas loaded with Paveways.

Good luck!        

[upnorth]

So....TA-4's instead of hawks then?

That really WOULD be a nail in the cofffin of the british airccraft industry - Hawker are really taking a pounding with no harrier, and the adoption of the TA-4 (a logical step) would be a bitter pill.

Let's hope that the TSR.2 sold well!

The Speyhawk sounds like a winner - how high tech are you going to go with this?  Is the Gr.5 going to have LLTV or IR?  Glass cockpit? FBW? Rewinging or canards? A retractable TRAM ball? Pave tack or pave spike? - maybe have them in Op Granby working in pairs, one designates, the other drops....

...or they could be the designators for Tonkas loaded with Paveways.

Good luck!     

Actually, I had no intention of ditching the Hawk, may have to find something other than the Adour to power it, but it stays in as the RAF standard jet trainer.

The two holer Speyhawk is of course taken on as a type specific trainer.

Hate to say it, but the TSR.2's history stays the same in this alternate time line.

The late 60s and early 70s were a very difficult time for the RAF having two naval type aircraft forced upon them to make up the backbone of their strike element when TSR.2, Harrier and Jaguar all went bust for their various reasons.

The TSR.2 and Jaguar were victims of the politics that surrounded them and the Harrier suffered a string of accidents in its late prototype stage that resulted in all funding being pulled from the project.

As for the GR.5, I haven't thought too much about it. A Granby version would deffinitely get a TIALD pod among other things. Ican't see a Scooter with canards, but possibly a redesigned tail to incorporate all moving stabilators rather than separate elevators on the horizontal stabilizers.

I might also consider reworking the nose of the GR.5 so it would have a fully retractable IFR probe rather than any sort of bolt on type.

[nev]

O.K. How about this scenario:

GR.3s were initially built without the arrestor hook and had the chute in its place, but a series of accidents, like brake failures, led to the hook being reintegrated into the design from the third production batch

The Lightning and Phantom both had brake chutes and arrestor hooks....

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Really love this thread, and I have some hought after reading it!!

For the engine, it seams to be clear that your Skyhawk could have either the Spey and the RB-199. But as far as I'm concerned, I think the RB-199 could be a better choice. I explain why:
Even if the Spey is a good engine and even if a Speyhawk will have a common engine with the Buccaneer, it was clear in the early 1970's that the Buccaneer will be replaced by the RB-199 powered Tornado before the end of the decades.
So, why developing a Spey powered Skyhawk in the same time while it was clear since the begining that Skyhawk will enter service only few years before the Tornado?
Chosing the RB-199 for the Skyhawk will give to it a more modern engin, will reduce the unit cost of the RB-199 for the Tornado and it will be cheaper to maintain as it could have common maintain with Tornado's engines...

Moreover, the choice of the RB-199 could explain the delays that will put the Skyhawk into service in the late 1970's (like the Tornado) instead of the mid-70's... Maybe the initial design of the GR.3 could include a Spey and later be modified by political decision.
Indeed, a political debate could have happened in order to chose before an all English engine and a more modern, but multinational, engine. At the end, the negociations and modifications in the design could explain the delays.
But finaly, the aicraft could be more modern, have better equipments (as the RB-199 is lighter, you could save weight and place for bigger ECM and fuel) and have a common engine with the new Tornado.

The first batch could receive Mk103 (40.5kN, less than the Spey, but still better than any US variant of the Skyhawk)) RB-199 similar to the Tornado's, but the second and third batch could receive dedicated variant of the engine able to have a 4,7 or 4,9kN thrust rating (same thrust than the Spey, but with far less consumption)


For the arrestor hook and brake chutes, I think one of the two systems will be necessary in order to operate the plane from small runway or even from roads just like the USMC (it could be cool to replace the cancelled Harrier). I always prefered brake chutes for myself, but it's a personnal opinion (It allowed to have short landing in a non-military runway or road, something the arrestor hook is anable to do).

I personnally think that a jet with no chute or arrestor hook will be limited in its deployments. But I agree that sometime, an additional ECM ability is much more usefull than a chute.

So, an idea I had is to have a removable chute able to be replaced in few time by an ECM stuff.
French Mirage 2000C use a similar stuff: their braking chute could be replaced in only few minutes by an internal shaff/flare dispenser. Why not using the same system for your Skyhawk??


The problem with the "braking chute/serie of accidents/arrestor hook is that it will need some major modifications, and I think this is not very plausible, as braking chutes accidents are rare (and arrestor hooks accidents also happened, maybe more often, I'm not sure).
But I just think about something: doesn't the A-4H have both arrestor hook and braking chute??




And concerning the GR.5, did you think about an air-to-ground light radar, just like in the Mirage 2000D or Super Etendard? With terrain-following and maritime strike abilities for example?
Later, in the late 1990's, this radar could be replaced by a multipurpose PESA radar (such as the new Super Etendard radar, but with advanced air-air abilities) giving to the British Skyhawk more abilities than the Argentinian ones with their APG-65


Well, that is just some thought I had

Hope it could help you!!

[upnorth]

Good food for thought PD7, I'll definitely give your ideas consideration.

Nev: you've convinced me, the arrestor hook was never removed.  

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

happy to help

And you were right in listening to Nev! A-4 with arrestor hook always looked good to me!    

[AeroplaneDriver]

Love your ideas so far!  My RN Skyhawk a few years ago had some similar features.  Fee lfree to adopt and/or adapt any ideas.

 

[elmayerle]

Really love this thread, and I have some hought after reading it!!

For the engine, it seams to be clear that your Skyhawk could have either the Spey and the RB-199. But as far as I'm concerned, I think the RB-199 could be a better choice. I explain why:
Even if the Spey is a good engine and even if a Speyhawk will have a common engine with the Buccaneer, it was clear in the early 1970's that the Buccaneer will be replaced by the RB-199 powered Tornado before the end of the decades.
So, why developing a Spey powered Skyhawk in the same time while it was clear since the begining that Skyhawk will enter service only few years before the Tornado?
Chosing the RB-199 for the Skyhawk will give to it a more modern engin, will reduce the unit cost of the RB-199 for the Tornado and it will be cheaper to maintain as it could have common maintain with Tornado's engines...

Moreover, the choice of the RB-199 could explain the delays that will put the Skyhawk into service in the late 1970's (like the Tornado) instead of the mid-70's... Maybe the initial design of the GR.3 could include a Spey and later be modified by political decision.
Indeed, a political debate could have happened in order to chose before an all English engine and a more modern, but multinational, engine. At the end, the negociations and modifications in the design could explain the delays.
But finaly, the aicraft could be more modern, have better equipments (as the RB-199 is lighter, you could save weight and place for bigger ECM and fuel) and have a common engine with the new Tornado.

The first batch could receive Mk103 (40.5kN, less than the Spey, but still better than any US variant of the Skyhawk)) RB-199 similar to the Tornado's, but the second and third batch could receive dedicated variant of the engine able to have a 4,7 or 4,9kN thrust rating (same thrust than the Spey, but with far less consumption)


For the arrestor hook and brake chutes, I think one of the two systems will be necessary in order to operate the plane from small runway or even from roads just like the USMC (it could be cool to replace the cancelled Harrier). I always prefered brake chutes for myself, but it's a personnal opinion (It allowed to have short landing in a non-military runway or road, something the arrestor hook is anable to do).

I personnally think that a jet with no chute or arrestor hook will be limited in its deployments. But I agree that sometime, an additional ECM ability is much more usefull than a chute.

So, an idea I had is to have a removable chute able to be replaced in few time by an ECM stuff.
French Mirage 2000C use a similar stuff: their braking chute could be replaced in only few minutes by an internal shaff/flare dispenser. Why not using the same system for your Skyhawk??


The problem with the "braking chute/serie of accidents/arrestor hook is that it will need some major modifications, and I think this is not very plausible, as braking chutes accidents are rare (and arrestor hooks accidents also happened, maybe more often, I'm not sure).
But I just think about something: doesn't the A-4H have both arrestor hook and braking chute??




And concerning the GR.5, did you think about an air-to-ground light radar, just like in the Mirage 2000D or Super Etendard? With terrain-following and maritime strike abilities for example?
Later, in the late 1990's, this radar could be replaced by a multipurpose PESA radar (such as the new Super Etendard radar, but with advanced air-air abilities) giving to the British Skyhawk more abilities than the Argentinian ones with their APG-65


Well, that is just some thought I had

Hope it could help you!!

I'll agree with PD7's discussion on Spey versus RB.199 and point out that the Spey is a larger and heavier engine that also requires more mass flow, hence enlarged inlets; IMHO, since the RB.199 is flying in some form, they'd be better off going directly to it.  For an interim engine, considering size and mass flow requirements, how about a dry Avon 300 series adapted from Lightnings that have been "stood down"?  A dry Avon and the J65/Sapphire are fairly similar in size and airflow requirements and the dry Avon 300 series would have a bit more "poke" than the J65.

[upnorth]

Thanks Evan.

The reason I didn't go with an RB.199 from the beginning was primarily that I think it might have caused something of an issue for Germany and Italy, as partners in the Tornado project. That one of the partner nations would want to put it into regular service in any form prior to the production of the very aircraft it was developed for is one of those things that I feel probably wouldn't sit well with the other partner nations, business politics you know.....

As a matter of fact, that could be the basis of the delay in the GR.3 entering service. Heated arguments erupt at the Panavia meeting room tables when Britain announces a dry version of the RB.199 is the intended powerplant  for the new RAF Skyhawk. Germany and Italy ultimately threaten to pull out of the consortium if the RB.199 is introduced into service prior to the Tornado.

Publicly, it would make the best impression for the Tornado if it was used to introduce the RB.199 to service whereas if the engine had been used to push the Skyhawk about prior to the Tornado entering service it might look like the Tornado was running on a "make do" engine rather than one tailor made for it.

If I'm to start rolling GR.3s off the line in about 77 or so, I think an interim engine would simply be a matter of course. The intent would be there to upgrade to the RB.199 once the Tornado hit service.

The dry Avon it is for interim engine.